It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: buster2010
Why can't the pledge be returned back to how it was originally written?
OK, so monkeys can't move trees, got it. So what would happen if the monkey got to the top, peeled the banana and then redistributed the wealth? How would that have changed the results?
originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Wasent the word god added a long time after the pledge was first introduced, so why the need to add god to it it?
Is it more american?
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Wasent the word god added a long time after the pledge was first introduced, so why the need to add god to it it?
Is it more american?
It was added by Eisenhower who had just converted to a religion, he felt that by pushing God in the daily lives of Americans it would ward off secular communism. Under him our national motto was changed from "E pluribus unum" to "In God We Trust" and the pledge was changed to add "under God".
The entire thing is completely ridiculous, neither should be there.
That said, the pledge itself is voluntary as are all words you say during it... if you're an atheist just leave out the under God if it's so offensive to you.
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Wasent the word god added a long time after the pledge was first introduced, so why the need to add god to it it?
Is it more american?
It was added by Eisenhower who had just converted to a religion, he felt that by pushing God in the daily lives of Americans it would ward off secular communism. Under him our national motto was changed from "E pluribus unum" to "In God We Trust" and the pledge was changed to add "under God".
The entire thing is completely ridiculous, neither should be there.
That said, the pledge itself is voluntary as are all words you say during it... if you're an atheist just leave out the under God if it's so offensive to you.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Wasent the word god added a long time after the pledge was first introduced, so why the need to add god to it it?
Is it more american?
It was added by Eisenhower who had just converted to a religion, he felt that by pushing God in the daily lives of Americans it would ward off secular communism. Under him our national motto was changed from "E pluribus unum" to "In God We Trust" and the pledge was changed to add "under God".
The entire thing is completely ridiculous, neither should be there.
Exactly, well said.
That said, the pledge itself is voluntary as are all words you say during it... if you're an atheist just leave out the under God if it's so offensive to you.
Not so well said. While yes that may be a nice stop gap measure, but by no means should it be a permanent solution. You just finished outlining why those words SHOULDN'T be in there then say that non-Christians (or non-believers in this God) should just shut up when it is said. First off, that is all well and good for atheists and agnostics, but what about Hindus or Buddhists or any other religion that doesn't believe in a singular god like Paganism? These words need to be removed from the pledge, money, and other places in government it appears. It is NOT acceptable to just sit back and say that it is a part of life and to just ignore it. I'm sure if the word was Lucifer instead of God, Christians wouldn't be so content with it.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Not so well said. While yes that may be a nice stop gap measure, but by no means should it be a permanent solution. You just finished outlining why those words SHOULDN'T be in there then say that non-Christians (or non-believers in this God) should just shut up when it is said. First off, that is all well and good for atheists and agnostics, but what about Hindus or Buddhists or any other religion that doesn't believe in a singular god like Paganism? These words need to be removed from the pledge, money, and other places in government it appears. It is NOT acceptable to just sit back and say that it is a part of life and to just ignore it. I'm sure if the word was Lucifer instead of God, Christians wouldn't be so content with it.
originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: Krazysh0t
What is your solution, then? Got any ideas that won't piss off the parents or legislators or the educational board?
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: Krazysh0t
What is your solution, then? Got any ideas that won't piss off the parents or legislators or the educational board?
All religion or no religion. If all religion is unfeasible, then no religion. Sorry but there is no solution that won't upset everyone, that is a fairy tail.
originally posted by: AfterInfinity
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: Krazysh0t
What is your solution, then? Got any ideas that won't piss off the parents or legislators or the educational board?
All religion or no religion. If all religion is unfeasible, then no religion. Sorry but there is no solution that won't upset everyone, that is a fairy tail.
But do you realize that Christianity is one of very few religions that are not taught in grade school? Children learn about dozens of different mythologies and spiritual eras in history class. They learn about Buddha, Krishna, Odin, Quetzlcoatl, Zeus, Osiris - and all the accompanying pantheons - but heaven forbid if one word about Christianity ever be spoken in a classroom. Maybe the reason some people are getting upset about Christianity being left out of the school curriculum is precisely because that means an all-inclusive education regarding religion and spirituality in history is unfeasible. Seriously, they even teach about Islam in schools, but they can't teach about Christianity? My point being, if that's your answer, then they'd better take it all out. Every god from every country, every spiritual label or term forbidden in our schools.
But...wait...that's a violation of our rights. Freedom of speech and all that.
originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: Krazysh0t
You would be surprised. But you did say to either have all religions in schools, or take all religions out. And I was saying that to do so would affect more than just the pledge.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: Krazysh0t
You would be surprised. But you did say to either have all religions in schools, or take all religions out. And I was saying that to do so would affect more than just the pledge.
Well that's what I mean, having all religion in schools would just be chaotic and there would not be enough time in the school day or school year to properly teach all the religions. Therefore it is unfeasible. Therefore the only option left is NO religion in school (except for educational purposes).